Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Votes for Deletion, the next generation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lexi Marie (talk | contribs) at 13:40, 2 August 2005 (reply to reply to reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Instruction creep

There are too many of these proposals going up all at once. --malathion talk 01:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I didn't notice any of them until I made this one though. This seems like the best idea to me though. --Phroziac (talk) 02:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well you can balem people RFCing Tony. --Cool Cat My Talk 10:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal is too complicated. One of the major faults of VfD is that it was too complicated. This would make it even more so. Enough with the instruction creep, already. Kelly Martin 01:49, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

I have strong instruction creep tendencies, Kelly. Sorry! --Phroziac (talk) 02:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The project isn't as complicated as it looks. Its much more simpler than vfd. What I am saying is in order for you to delete a page you have to get the author to defend it and fail to establish materials notability or relevancy or if it is encyclopedic. --Cool Cat My Talk 10:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a step backwards to me. There seems to be not room for discussion. --Tony SidawayTalk 03:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that if the process is made like RFA, then the entire deletion process has to be extended for a while. How long should it last: two weeks? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, that's what the "comments" section is for. Maybe it should be renamed to "discussion"? Zscout370, Two weeks is a little insane. I assume you're talking about extending the process for cases where consensus is not reached in the normal time? All i met by like rfa was the format by the way. --Phroziac (talk) 04:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Most of the delete votes happen in the first few days, and usually never added on to. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what is everyone's issue with "instruction creep." Every new policy I ever tried to start or was involved in was shot down due to this "cpeep." Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Instruction creep - the gradual accumulation of more and more instructions that results in irritating overcomplicated processes that few people know the rules to. Tends to happen because people think "we need a rule for X", and don't consider the effects of hundreds of people doing the same. See m:Instruction creep and related Creeping featurism. -- Cyrius|✎ 07:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, once I see this word pop up, EVERYONE begins to oppose the idea. This happened every time I been involved. But, I think with as few rules we have, we need more once we see certain situations come up. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have commented out the vote as requested, I was too enthusastic. --Cool Cat My Talk 10:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The simple fact that this proposal starts off with a vote on the day that it's introduced, only shows that it's getting ready to replace the existing problem with more of the same. The biggest need in an effective deletion system is admins who are capable of being sensitive to the interests of all parties in a deletion discussion. All those with an interest in a particular discussion, including rank newbies, need to feel that their arguments are being heard. This does not mean that everything they propose will be kept, but they can at least walk away from a losing argument with the feeling that they may still succeed in future arguments. This requires patience and humility on the part of those admins, and the ability to recognize that the peace which comes from giving others the benefit of the doubt may be worth far more than the perfection that comes from eliminating an article of dubious notability.

I have no problem admitting that I sometimes act autocratically about deletions in Wiktionary, and occasionally even ignore the wishes of the majority, but there is no outcry about abuse of privileges. Those against whom I act today know that tomorrow there will be other arguments that they can win. Apart from some obvious no brainers, I prefer to wait until at least seven days after the time of the last comment on a proposal before taking any kind of action. Not only that, but in all cases, including the no-brainers, I prefer to wait at least a further seven days before deleting the debate. This leaves an opportunity for those who might want something undeleted. The process may be much slower, but that's better than letting loose a hoard of junior Dr. Strangeloves to impose their solutions. Eclecticology 08:59:02, 2005-08-02 (UTC)

I have comented out the voting. As requested. Sorry I was too enthusiastic. --Cool Cat My Talk 10:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss what is sugessted, not how it is presented. I don't think opposing something for petty reasons is the wisest idea.

Comments moved from page

  • I certainly agree with an arbitration group, however, you'd end up with a group of users clearing up a load of deletion stuff, and not contributing to the project overall, which isn't fair to my mind. Perhaps users could opt into a month's "deletion duty" or somesuch?
  • Rob, I already do way more janitorial work on wikipedia then actual contribution. Most of what i know is already there! :( As far as I see it, it's still contributing to make the Wikipedia better, which is worth doing. I would support a comitte or opting into a time of "deletion duty" though. --Phroziac (talk) 03:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think almost all of these proposals would make the VfD process worse. Point for point:
  1. Only keep/delete votes allowed: at the moment, people vote e.g. "merge", because that is what they want to happen. Take that possibility away, and their opinion can no longer be heard. Unless, of course, they leave a comment in the comment section, which emans that the admin who closes should take that whole section into account...
    There are VfD's where there is a consensus (or nearly so) for merge. Under this rule, everyone will have to vote "keep", and then after the vote is closed, someone will merge & redirect. But because "merge" was not a vote option, there is no consensus for this to point at, and much discussion will ensue. Taking options away from people will not make them happier.
  2. Only allow "move to bjaodn": of all possible votes, "move to bjaodn" is the most pointless. If you want to streamline the process, this should be the first thing to go.
  3. 1 week to fix the article: if you mean that voting cannot start until a week after the nomination: our aim should be to make the process shorter; not longer. This proposal means the voters will have to visit the discussion twice: once to comment on the weaknesses of the article; a second time to vote on the deletion.
  4. Nominator should put delete vote in: why make the exception (nominator doesn't want the article deleted) the default?
  5. No immediate renominations: Good idea.
  6. Voting on article talk pages: if the pages are controversial, this will mean that there is already much discussion on the talk page. If the vote is also on the talk page, it will be harder to find, and it will refer more to the surrounding discussion. I fear this will make it much harder for the closing admin to tally the votes. Voting should be on seperate pages.
  7. firm and solid rules for criteria: There are rules. The reason there are so many discussions on VfD is that people disagree about how these rules apply to certain articles. You cannot change that by creating more rules: there will always be borderline cases, that will have to discussed individually. (And, by the way, that is partly how these rules are created: not a priori, but during VfD's.)
  8. every delete should be a speedy: I'm not sure you really meant that?
  9. deletion community: If you mean a committee, 5 or 6 people who have to decide on every VfD (dozens a day, every day); where are you going to find these people, outside of the "VfD fanatics"?
Many of these arguments also apply to the other proposals that are being thrown around at the moment. I'm afraid that wikipedia really needs something like the current VfD process: it's sometimes ugly and unpleasant, but it fulfils a need, and it works, mostly. And when it fails, it's on the most controversial issues. I don't see why another process would work in those cases. Eugene van der Pijll 08:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Merge should be fine in the "other" section, that's most of why i put that there. I'll update the text to show it. :p
  2. ^^
  3. No, voting would start immediately.
  4. Because it screws up the vote numbers if they are lazy and don't.
  5. Thanks!
  6. Article talk subpage maybe?
  7. Probably :(
  8. No, every deletion should not be a speedy.
  9. I'll poke Coolcat with a fork on IRC until he responds.

--Phroziac (talk) 12:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Only Yes/No votes, merge, assimilate, exterminate and other comments belong to discussion. The merging should be done prior to the vote anyways. --Cool Cat My Talk 13:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. We arent reinventing VfD, just simplifing it. We dont want poorly formated/categorised data to be deleted if there is the slightest chance it will be converted to well formated knowlege. --Cool Cat My Talk 13:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. bjaodn is fine. Same procedure form VfD can proceed I dont object to it. --Cool Cat My Talk 13:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. A certain period of time should be given to the article prior to vote. 1 week, 15 days thats open to debate. see section above. --Cool Cat My Talk 13:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Vote should nont be rushed. Nominator can change views. The point of this process is to try to improve the article. If its beyond repair a delete is then voted. --Cool Cat My Talk 13:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I say no renominations for a mounth. --Cool Cat My Talk 13:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Voting and delete discussion should be placed above all discussion. If people on contraversial articles cannot refrain from personal attacks and/or abusive behavior they are violating wikipedia policies and will be dealt accordingly. --Cool Cat My Talk 13:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. In the US constitution when first declared there were lots of "should"s, they later were ammended to "must"s. I dont want new rules, I just want existing rules to be clarified and not open for interpretation. Wikipedia is not a soap box or a state court. --Cool Cat My Talk 13:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. If I am proposing a page be deleted it is best to mark it for quickie delete, if reviewing admin (delete committee) sees it necesary to delete no real reason to discuss. Just let people like Tony Sideaway decide. If they think there is room for discussion page should be deleted at once. This is neccesary against people with misguided energy (GNAA).
  4. We have an arbitration community, certainly it isn't that hard for people to form a Deleteaton committee. Jimbo can appoint or we could think of some other way. --Cool Cat My Talk 13:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The point of VfD isnt to get an article deleted or save it. It exists to improve wikipedia. In my view and many people out there VfD is over cluttered fails to achieve its primary function. Its a palce where random people throw each other personal attacks. --Cool Cat My Talk 13:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. How to criticise. There are two types of criticism, usefull and useless. Useless: "Aw this articke SUX. delete!", Usefull: "How about we reword first paragraph like so and perhaps reoranise the page? ". After lots of usefull discussion, I do not believe a delete will be necesarty as the article will be improved beyond recognition. {{nonsense}} will still be {{nonsense}} and get deleted pronto. --Cool Cat My Talk 13:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comon Ground

Discussion period of new vfd's

Firstly lets establish certain comon ground, we all agree that a vote prior to discussion is highly flawed. Correct me if I am wrong. --Cool Cat My Talk 10:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoning redundent ceteralised template system

It started as a nice idea but since VfD is cluttered we seriously need to move the delete process to article talk pages as we have on average a list of templates two pages long on VfD. --Cool Cat My Talk 10:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed --Phroziac (talk) 12:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Process should be arbcom like?

Arbcom is discussing matters with minimun burocracy. I think this would be wise, disagreements? --Cool Cat My Talk 10:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have experience with arbcom -- is there any reason YOU do? :P --Phroziac (talk) 12:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DynamicPageLists

There is a way to list articles in a category chronologically: use the m:DynamicPageList extension, which was developed for Wikinews but could be very useful here. It's not (as far as I know) turned on here at the moment, but I can't see that being a problem.

It would allow the VfD template to include a category (if it doesn't already), and then a single page could automatically list all articles in that category, not only in time order, but also with the day they were added (useful for seeing which have had their time).

However, if the debate was moved to the article's talk page, wouldn't it be deleted along with the article in the event of a consensus for deletion? Dan100 (Talk) 11:03, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Neat suggestion! I like it. Yes, it would be deleted with the article. Do we really need an archive of every page ever deleted, and why? I suppose that if we do, an archive could be made, where the deleting admin archives it to before deleting. --Phroziac (talk) 12:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of the redundant VfD template we keep talk pages of deleted articles as to keep the discussion. Perhaps protect it as well as it shouldnt be edited what-so-ever. --Cool Cat My Talk 12:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_Deletion,_the_next_generation&oldid=20113618"